“It’s astounding to me that the president is claiming these are recess appointments and within his authority, when Congress was not in fact in recess,” Black said. “These appointments are an affront to the Constitution. No matter how you look at this, it doesn’t pass the smell test. I hope the House considers my resolution as soon as we return to Washington so we can send a message to President Obama.”

She continued:

"What’s more, the NLRB appointments were jammed through by the president before the Senate even had the chance to consider the appointees. Their names were only put forward on Dec. 15, a mere two days before the Senate recessed for the holiday. The president is clearly out of bounds here and should not be allowed to skirt the Constitution as he pleases."

Oh -- in case you're wondering whether maybe Roll Call botched the quotes...no, they're taken directly from Black's press release. So we're to believe that it's outrageous for the president to call what's happening now a recess, and the House intends to take it up as soon as they get back into town after recessing for the holiday.

15 comments:

I support the recess appointments, but your argument here isn't quite on point. The issue is not whether the House were in recess; they don't have advice and consent power. The issue is whether the Senate were in recess ... and they were.

The only reason the Senate wouldn't be in recess is that the House refused to let them go into recess, by not going into recess themselves. By stating that the House was actually in recess, she was undermining the only plausible argument that the Senate wasn't.

I'm leaving this open another day or two: this is your big chance to win a coveted Plain Blog "Catch of the Day." Well, at least a share of one. All you have to do is find examples of Republicans calling what Congress is up to now "recess."